Election Day is long gone for most Americans, but in
Louisiana, campaigning is reaching a fever pitch as voters prepare to
trudge back to the polls Dec. 7 for a runoff election. Incumbent
Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, denied a majority of the vote in a field
of nine on Nov. 5, faces the No. 2 vote-getter, Republican Suzanne Haik
Terrell, in a new election that's costing millions of dollars more and
luring President Bush back for a campaign visit Tuesday.

Unknown
in much of the country, runoffs are used by Louisiana, eight other
states — from Texas to North Carolina — and scores of cities. The idea
is to make sure winners garner more than half the vote for public
offices, an important goal that prevents fringe candidates from winning
with a small minority of ballots in a crowded field.

But
the system is needlessly costly — a $3 million tab for taxpayers in
Alabama's runoff primaries alone this year. It sends candidates and
their backers into a renewed frenzy of fundraising. And turnout
frequently plummets from the earlier election.

There
is a better way: instant runoffs. Instead of voting for just one
candidate, voters rank their preferences for candidates from first to
last. If no one receives a majority of first-choice votes, the
last-place candidate is eliminated and the second choices from those
ballots are added to the totals for the remaining candidates. The
process continues until one candidate emerges with a majority. Ireland
and Australia have used the system in national elections, and it has
been adopted in parts of Great Britain.

Now, the
idea is starting to catch on in the USA. Louisiana residents who vote
from overseas by absentee ballot already have that option. San
Francisco will start using instant runoffs next year and several other
municipalities, largely in the West, are preparing to go the same
route.

In Vermont and New Mexico, support for the
idea is growing in response to significant third-party movements that
raise the prospect of candidates regularly winning state offices with
less than majority support. Several local non-binding votes in
Massachusetts this year also showed support for the idea because of
growing concern about candidates winning primaries and general
elections with slim percentages.

Critics say
ranking candidates violates the principle of "one man, one vote," an
argument that spurred voters in Alaska to reject the system this year.
But the courts disagree. Though the goal of ensuring that the "least
objectionable" candidate wins might not always be achieved, that's less
a worry than the risks of highly undemocratic minority representation
under the current system.

Candidates aren't the
only immediate winners from instant runoffs. The idea also saves money,
spares voters the need to return to the polls, and improves the chances
that the wishes of a majority are truly heard.